Sounds interesting but would overly complicate things maybe. Imagine if you had to worry about volume and not just weight in Skyrim. You would drown in books and ammunition.

Nah. An overly complicated system is where you have to think about the dimensions of objects such as, trying to fit a quarterstaff into a backpack or if you consider that pots should be low volume since you can fit things inside them, but that doesn't hold true if you are filling a cart full of pots of the same size.

Volume and weight is a pretty simple system. If you want to be able to fit an unlimited number of arrows into your pack, don't give them a volume or a weight, and if you want it to just be a lot, give them a low volume and low weight. Not everything has to be 100% accurate to real life. People are really only going to watch the number that is closer to it's limit unless they are a trader and really trying to maximize what they can carry. In which case I think the extra number will add a lot of fun.

Sounds interesting but would overly complicate things maybe. Imagine if you had to worry about volume and not just weight in Skyrim. You would drown in books and ammunition.

Well in Skyrim they pretty much encoraged you to pack everything but the kitchen sink for a simple quick trip down the street. PFO you aren't particularly likely to be carrying more than you absolutely need, and most likely large loads of carrying will be delivered via wagons etc... which should have pretty darn large of both.

I agree for most spells but I certainly don't mind needing material componants for powerful spells, particularly if it allows them to include powerful spells they might not have included due to cast at will being too powerful.

I am fine with material components for some high level spells. For example, the PnP spell Stoneskin . Very useful spell, but it costs a bit of diamond dust to cast. I am fine with certain spells needing certain components to cast. A high end blade for a fighter might require some rare resources, so a high level spell for a wizard might need some rare components.

["Less loss" is not none. And "less value" is not none. People will still make and sell arms and armor, but they won't do it in high volumes like people do with ships and ship fittings in EVE.]

Instead what I anticipate we will create is a system where you need to combine a consumable resource with your weapons and armor to get maximum effect from them, and those resources won't survive the trip to the grave. So crafters will make lots of those resources instead of making lots of swords and armor sets. It's unlikely that someone will be just a guy who makes swords. It's much more likely that guy will make sword consumables, and the occasional sword on commission.

Now whether this consumable is a charge per hour, or charge per swing is unknown and probably undecided. The idea of cost per attack when dealing powerful attacks, is not an impossibility for any class.

I am fine with material components for some high level spells. For example, the PnP spell Stoneskin . Very useful spell, but it costs a bit of diamond dust to cast. I am fine with certain spells needing certain components to cast. A high end blade for a fighter might require some rare resources, so a high level spell for a wizard might need some rare components.

The way i see this sort of thing working out well, is if some spells are centered around limited use/rechargeable items. Since we're already certain not every spell is going to get mapped from the PnP to the MMO, there's much more freedom for design. Example spell of stonskin; Maybe its a trinket or amulet that requires a commodity (such as a pinch of diamond dust) to charge up, and the relative payoff of the on use ability is fairly high (perhaps teirs of items, 1-5 times per charge). In this way we promote the economy with a high end item, promote the economy with a recharge resource, and we don't penalize someone for having a Refresh type ability with an additional cost.

A little bit more on this thinking; Its good to keep in mind that just as we won't really be seeing the teensy level 1 wizards in fear of a healthy sized housecat, we also might not be seeing epic masters of arcane, bending reality with a whim as we see in the PnP game. With no levels, many many many mechanics aren't going to mesh up (no caster level, no access to overtly redonkulous spells, etc). Its been stated many moons ago that the targeted region of "relative" power is in the level 6-10 range. Perhaps for flavor and fun we'll see powered down versions of Meteor Swarm or Earthwave, but to expect level 18-20 style Wizard power just doesn't strike me as meshing with the design goals.

Now whether this consumable is a charge per hour, or charge per swing is unknown and probably undecided. The idea of cost per attack when dealing powerful attacks, is not an impossibility for any class.

Now whether this consumable is a charge per hour, or charge per swing is unknown and probably undecided. The idea of cost per attack when dealing powerful attacks, is not an impossibility for any class.

Hopefully it's the former, such as WoW's repair costs.

Personally I see advantages to both, the biggest advantage I see in per swing, is people dialing down to weaker/cheaper weapons for weaker opponents. This to me gives incentive for people to challange themselves, IE removes the grind that winds up in many games where you are massively overleveled and overgeared for a place, and just kill things rapidly for money. With this idea, with per swing costs, you would actually have incentive to use a weaker consumable to make the weaker monsters still notable, or fight a stronger monster with your stronger consumable.

Now not only is that good because it encorages people to play what is more fun, it also stops the high levels from rapid grinding the heck out of weak things, plummeting the price for the people of appropriate level who actually take time to kill things.

That also helps pvp, IE in a war of attrition, picking the right grade of weapon for the fight, could be key to victory. IE go into battle using too strong consumables, you may empty your coffers while your opponent is still coasting along, use too weak, your opponent may overrun you.

I am fine with material components for some high level spells. For example, the PnP spell Stoneskin . Very useful spell, but it costs a bit of diamond dust to cast. I am fine with certain spells needing certain components to cast. A high end blade for a fighter might require some rare resources, so a high level spell for a wizard might need some rare components.

The way i see this sort of thing working out well, is if some spells are centered around limited use/rechargeable items. Since we're already certain not every spell is going to get mapped from the PnP to the MMO, there's much more freedom for design. Example spell of stonskin; Maybe its a trinket or amulet that requires a commodity (such as a pinch of diamond dust) to charge up, and the relative payoff of the on use ability is fairly high (perhaps teirs of items, 1-5 times per charge). In this way we promote the economy with a high end item, promote the economy with a recharge resource, and we don't penalize someone for having a Refresh type ability with an additional cost.

A little bit more on this thinking; Its good to keep in mind that just as we won't really be seeing the teensy level 1 wizards in fear of a healthy sized housecat, we also might not be seeing epic masters of arcane, bending reality with a whim as we see in the PnP game. With no levels, many many many mechanics aren't going to mesh up (no caster level, no access to overtly redonkulous spells, etc). Its been stated many moons ago that the targeted region of "relative" power is in the level 6-10 range. Perhaps for flavor and fun we'll see powered down versions of Meteor Swarm or Earthwave, but to expect level 18-20 style Wizard power just doesn't strike me as meshing with the design goals.

I cannot stress how much I hope that doesn't happen.

Why anyone would want to look mediocre is beyond me.

Just as I know it's not my imagination that a lot of people are eagerly awaiting the Mythic rules and playtest.

Now that doesn't mean they should have wish. There's no real way to implement that.

And frankly trying to keep everyone within a similar power range is good, because a smart newbie will still make a veteran work for his victory instead of it being a one hit kill just because of level difference.

That's what drove me insane about WoW. Their iconics weren't truly iconic. That suggests to me that yes, with enough patience and training you too can rule the world with only five easy payments of the souls of the innocent/damned.

But your level 90 shaman made Thrall throw up from laughter. Your DK gave Arthas unheartburn.

Why would they do that though. A level 20 sorcerer would destroy a level 1 anything, no matter how smart. You just don't have the HP at that level to survive anything but a small allergic reaction.

Fairness? If they want to live, they level. That's fair.

I dunno. It just seems that I'll hear something great immediately followed by a disappointment when I read these forums.

That is why there aren't levels, they aren't called levels to remove the misnomers.

We are talking open pvp, the core of the game involving things like going out into dangerous zones, joining in wars, etc...

The segregated "1-4 area" is what is not the intended design of the game, as well the "race to level cap" isn't even a possibility.

Skills are leveled over time, the capstone will take minimum 2.5 years to reach, that is the case for both the compulsive guy who plays 23 hours a day, the medium core guy who spends 3 hours a night, and the casual who logs on for an hour every other day.

The intent of this game is to actually encorage grouping together, to be able to actually do things meaningful with friends, without worrying about "Oh jim went out and got 4 levels ahead, we can't team with him anymore". The theme park MMO's kind of have it where the level cap is the endgame, you work your tail off to get started on what you enjoy doing. PFO intends for you to be a part of what you enjoy doing at day 1, then continue to get a little bit better at it over time.

The overall intended feel of power change in this game, isn't to go from the "OMG that housecat just dealt half of my HP" level 1,
to
Oops I sneezed and accidentally destroyed a planet level 20 of P&P

It is more intended to start at the competency of roughly a level 6ish character, working it's way up to roughly the power level of a level 10thish character. (I believe that's close to the description I forgot the exact levels given in this old analogy).

Note disclaimer on this, that does give any implication of what skills will and won't be in the game from P&P, IE 9th level spells may very well be in the game, though all spells could be drastically different then we know them in P&P, we'll understand more when details are listed

Don't forget the possibility of getting "level 20" in every role if you play long enough. That's when it should be feeling epic, "do I kill him with my sword, or do I magically burn him to death, or do desacrate the ground and raise a bunch of zombies to kill him?"

Spell components were actually something I had in mind when I was thinking of the benefits of volume vs. weight. High intelligence characters are more likely to need things like spell components, scrolls, traps, cantrips, etc. which would be mostly high volume low weight items where I could see higher strength characters packing heavier items like food and spare weapons/throwing weapons. I would actually probably design consumables with that in mind. Making consumables for stronger archetypes heavier and for more intelligent archetypes higher volume.

However I do kind of agree. I wouldn't mind seeing a system where spell components, arrows, sling bullets, throwing weapons etc. are something where you get the weapon and it then has unlimited ammo. Ammo is generally just a straight up pain in the butt that punishes everyone who doesn't play a melee class.

The switch is from a tabletop/single-player frame to a social, player-driven frame, which requires a shift in how you achieve a sense of epicness.

In tabletop or single player games it's about a power differential, as Onishi pointed out because it's about playing with the environment--that won't work when you're playing with/against other players. So feeling like you've achieved something is going to be about

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I'd like to avoid the term "end game" because it's not really applicable to the kind of game we're designing. Themeparks have end games because, well, eventually you ride all the rides, and you have to have some kind of term to describe what you do when you reach that condition.

I think there is a great question which is "what do I do after I've gained some player & character mastery?"

We see four answers:

1: You and your friends are seeking to be first. You're going where nobody has gone before - maybe that's exploring territory. Maybe it's in developing weird and wonderful characters. Maybe it's min-maxing builds for PvP combat. You gain satisfaction from the sense of doing things most other players can't or won't ever do.

2: You and your friends become famous. You slay the biggest dragons. You fight demons and angels. You walk around in armor that radiates power, wielding weapons of arcane might. Your deeds are legendary. Other players know who your characters are. You gain satisfaction from the adulation of your peers.

3: You and your friends become market powerhouses. You set up the best supply lines and production facilities so that you can make the coolest stuff at the best prices and get it to the most valuable markets. You gain satisfaction from making obscene amounts of money.

4: You and your friends play the Kingdom Game. You create, develop, and protect a part of the world of Pathfinder Online that you call your own. Your actions may include attacking and trying to destroy the Kingdoms of other groups of players. You gain satisfaction from the sense power and control.

You're going to feel epic and awesome not because you can crush 20 5-merit badge players with the wave of a hand. You're going to feel epic and awesome because you're an elite soldier in the best company in Golarion, or because you're an incredibly seasoned explorer who's mapped the entire river kingdom.

Don't forget the possibility of getting "level 20" in every role if you play long enough. That's when it should be feeling epic, "do I kill him with my sword, or do I magically burn him to death, or do desacrate the ground and raise a bunch of zombies to kill him?"

Point of order: The odds of a player living long enough to train a character to max skill in every role are small.

2: You and your friends become famous. You slay the biggest dragons. You fight demons and angels. You walk around in armor that radiates power, wielding weapons of arcane might. Your deeds are legendary. Other players know who your characters are. You gain satisfaction from the adulation of your peers.

This one right here would most adequately describe the kind of feeling I would expect from such a high fantasy setting.

Why else do we even play D&D? Vanquish mighty foes, take all their stuffs.

Except the adulation from peers. That's minor for me. But to take on the Tarrasque or a colossal red dragon or Asmodeus himself, that's the life for me.

I mean really, can you get more heroic than beating up the devil.

But as it comes to spells and whatnot, I don't want watered down versions as described by that guy up there whose name eludes me at the moment. Gruffler or something I dunno I've been up all night.

I want my 18th level druid throwing out tons of summoned natures allies. And not tiny little constructs. I mean full sized monsters.

I want a wizard tossing down a polar storm and watching as the field freezes to death.

Or wading into tons of minions with a barbarian cleaving his rage off.

@Xein; While I agree, those are all awesome moments, but as described they're all very single player or small game concepts. All of those spell or ability descriptions feel epic, partly because of the long slow road of accomplishment that comes with a level 20 player, but also because it puts the epic into the hands of each of at most 5-6 players. Once you introduce the idea of a multiple thousand (or 10s of thousands) players, immediately you'll find that what seems epic to a group around the table, feels like the norm, or even underpowered in a MMO. By keeping the scale of things MORE limited, the choices made can be more impressive than the raw explosion of numbers. Take WoW for example; with the most recent expac, the numbers are settling down into the multiple hundreds of thousands, whereas before any expansions the numbers barely broke into the thousands... at some point its not more impressive, its just adding on a few zeros and calling it the new epic.

There's also the issue of persistence. Say there's the Colossal Red Dragon Smaag (>.>) and you and your friends run up the mountain and drop a can of whoopass on him, ending his reign of terror. In a theme-park MMO, that pesky Red is right back in his vault, all his minions are chillin , and you guys have to even unlock the front door again. In PFO, if you have a similar success, Smaag is dead. He won't be back next week. Or ever. That dungeon you cleared every last corner of, it might be empty for some time, you might have the option of plundering its depths for all the natural resources, you might even have the option of setting up a fortress, and ruling over the now grateful populace.

Which of those two seems more epic? Dropping huge numbers on ultimately useless opponents, or using teamwork and whatever skills are at hand to literally change the face of the game.

Also consider this simple question; What Next? So you've taken over a fortress, and this is a boon for you and your Company of mercs, but suddenly you now have a massive strategic advantage over other companies of players. Do they sit around and allow you to clean up the fortress? Or is it in their interests to subvert your efforts with economic sanctions, guerrilla attacks, and an eventual siege? Maybe you make best efforts and secure some allegiances, but are forced into battle with others? Your company is clearly well designed to kill dragons, but they aren't very good on the mass combat, so you have to enlist the aid of another company of hired soldiers.

All this is the type of multilayered, complex system that has been described by the blogs, and throughout these forums. One basic aspect of this is the assumption that instead of driving the "numbers" higher, players will instead be given more and more options as they progress through the game. Becoming an epic fighter isn't about comparing how your PFO character's stats and underlying math will compare to your table top fighter's stats/math, it will be about what you've done, and how much of an impact you've had on the whole of the game world.

Are you thinking of having 'archtypes', a grouping of like skills to raise, that a player can select to aid them in picking the right skills (kind of like training wheels for a casual or new gamer), and a free open skill selection?

That is what I am thinking thier aim is. Skills are open selection, archtype is just guidelines to capstones. Thus, the no "class" thing. A lot of people are talking that capstones won't be that big of a deal, but if they are trying to get you to follow a path for two years, the reward has to be worth it. Which makes me think capstones will be worthwhile.

I am waiting on info for class, race, and skills to come out before choosing what I want to play. More likely a ranger or rogue, or a mix of the two.

Spell components are a good idea imo, but where weapons are concerned this can be implemented by having your sword require maintenance on a regular basis. Swords need sharpening, they need to be oiled and looked after. Bow strings should be an important commodity as will feathers for fletching and varnish or oil to keep the bow in good repair. Armour and Shields need oil and polish, leather needs to be oiled and the list of opportunities can go on forever. All of these things will make spell components seem like a better alternative, but they will keep crafters, gatherers and adventurers in business.

Since they are including durability, poorly looked after weapons can degrade faster then well cared for weapons (which if cared for well enough should last long enough to hand down to a promising student)

My hope is that you can feel epic from day one. You know, you create a character that starts with a pitch fork and no skills whatsoever. You then pick up a message in chat from a bunch of people who spotted a red dragon and you decide to team up. Your contribution might be limited, and yes you may die but man, it's epic right away.

On topic, I'm very tempted to go ranger. Lots of skills, nice defensive and utility spells (for gathering resources), good combat capabilities in both melee and range (for PvP), the ability to track down outlaws (for collecting bounties!). Overall a good class to explore the game.

On topic, I'm very tempted to go ranger. Lots of skills, nice defensive and utility spells (for gathering resources), good combat capabilities in both melee and range (for PvP), the ability to track down outlaws (for collecting bounties!). Overall a good class to explore the game.

I think a ranger who is an explorer/resource explorer would be awesome. If I weren't zeroed in on a religious solder that would be my choice.

Well,
as one of the most intriguing threads on the board ("what are you going to play?"), this has sure branched-out and gone all over the place!
we have discussions on classes vs. archetypes
we have discussions on carrying capacity and mechanics
leading to thoughts on item degradation, consumables, spell components (must be in the game imho)
thoughts on 'epic' feel, mostly related to individual achievements/powers/spells
and finally we're back, sorta, on-track with:
"what are you going to play?"

Unfortunately, most of what I've seen (barring just a few examples) has been in the realm of game/character mechanics. ie. from examples like "a guy with a sword" to "lich deathknight antipaladin with the graveborne template because I can't play a deathmage".

As a long-time DM, player, and grudging convert to the online world of mmorpgs (another discussion, for another thread), when I hear "what do you want to play?" I immediately think of my role in society/the world at large. When given the opportunity to start a level 1 character, I have a humble, and potentially ambitious beginning to a personality. I have a set of goals, ideals, or challenges that I confront myself with.

I have more respect for the "guy with a sword" answer than the templated arch-gibbledy-gok replies. The GWAS has a humble beginning. He has some goals in mind. He will seek out some things that interest him, and pursue them until complete or uninteresting. This, already, is a more 'alive' character than the stat-block-from-epic-hell.

I think, having read through much of the site, the blogs, and the TT Pathfinder material (let alone playing in the best, simplest and most-directly-engaging, Mark-I Sandbox: yes, the lowly tabletop experience), that given the systems that PFO will incorporate (mass combat, trade/economics, society/structure building, etc.), and noting the mandate that group-interaction in their sandbox will be the dominant theme and paradigm, that the designers, developers, and (hopefully) players (who will presumably stay-on long-term with the game) would be more interested in this thread if some real thought were put into our posts.

To wit: "What do you want to play?"

Newly arrived in the River Kindoms, I've noted that there's a great bloody river and some folks squabbling over a bunch of land around it. I'm planning on leading an expeditionary force to chart new settlement areas, with the goal of subduing local wild life and charging the homesteading/pioneering/settlement building (aka city-folk) for my services. I'm not a 1-man-army, so I will gather a group of like-minded folks to help me with this (near and long-term) goal.

Now, obviously, the above could suit a variety of archetypes. In fact, nearly any of the core 11 could accomplish such goals. And this is where the beauty of the sandbox really comes forth: it doesn't (much) matter whether I'd play a ranger, druid, thief, cleric, fighter, barbarian, etc. etc. for the above situation. This game is all about choice: the intricacies of your 'stat block' are your (the player's) choice, but the goals, and pursuit of them are your character's... and who knows, the pursuit of these (basic) goals could lead you into conflict or cahoots with a variety of others (players and npcs alike). This is the real power of the sandbox. Your choices will spin-off countless others, and will generate play for others, just as their choices will generate play for you.

So: tell me this. How much variety and choice and play will you bring to the table (sandbox, apologies), if you're just a max-level-achieving/number-crunching/templated arch whosi-whatsi?

And how much more variety and choice and game play will you bring and generate as a GWAS (or whatever societal role you choose to espouse from here on out)?

Personally, I'm intent on playing a thieving scumbag dirtrat who would shank his own mother (in law) to score a few more glubs of grog on a school-night. I'm gonna play a bandit and recruit a bandit army, and prey on all those cardboard-cutout soloists out wandering around looking for exotic spell components and resources and whatnot. because no matter what else happens, I'll be as epic as they are, in the same time-frame, and (hopefully) we'll both have a great time playing what we want.

Just as long as you remember that I'm a non cardboard cutout character, despite being solo adventurer and group construction artist. I might even give you useful intel, for a price of course. Hopefully the name Mindiana Jones won't be taken when I get in.

my guess is that Mindiana Jones would be flagged as immersion breaking, and thus (perhaps not initially, but eventually) put on Ryan's strict policy for naming conventions (I forget the blog article, but it's in there somewhere... have a thorough read-through).

And remember, even "Indy" had sidekicks (some more fortunate than others, to be sure), and recruited a small adventuring party for his more famous exploits.

Then again, Belloch recruited armies (of pygmies and Nazis both!). And while Belloch lost the war, he won an awful lot of battles in the mean-time, and, within our analogy, provided "Indy" with a lot of gameplay...

Isn't the point to enjoy playing, rather then to play so sometime in the distant future you can enjoy bragging about achievments?

Then again, we really should consider the different motivational types,

The achiever
Is motivated by achieving goals, particularly if challenging.

The explorer
Is motivated by discovery and the aquisition of knowledge.

The socialite
Is motivated by interacting with others.

The dominator (really need a better term for this)
Is motivated by having power.

All options should not only be available to all types but also shouldn't result in being locked out of anything, and capstones as is will only be gotten by achievers, a few dominators (unless OP, then all dominators), and even fewer exceptions.

I have more respect for the "guy with a sword" answer than the templated arch-gibbledy-gok replies.

Ha ha, I was writing this post while you were writing yours. It's pretty much what I call a GWAS!

grymrayne wrote:

I'm gonna play a bandit and recruit a bandit army, and prey on all those cardboard-cutout soloists out wandering around looking for exotic spell components and resources and whatnot. because no matter what else happens, I'll be as epic as they are, in the same time-frame, and (hopefully) we'll both have a great time playing what we want.

not sure what you're getting at regarding fail forward, but i do like your breaking down the motivational types... seems very appropriate.

that said, the short answer to your final question, and one i think you'll find this game and community will support, is "you can!"

You can explore your way to mastery. I'd be very surprised if there weren't merit badges for exploration (first to explore a hex, first to explore 10 hexes, "Master Explorer" for all hexes, etc.), crafting, and social endeavours...

You can achieve your way to mastery (this has a lot of overlap, especially within the mmo paradigm, with the dominator)

You can achieve your way to Social Standing (found a guild, society, etc. gain ranks in such, recruit x numbers of 'followers' or raise a horde to smash the puny humans! ahem*).

As I see it, capstone abilities can be achieved by anyone who: 1 plays long enough (2.5 yrs to start), and 2: gains enough merit badges to progress their archetype skills to the 20th level (or whatever they're going to end up calling it). dedicated players will have the merit badges earlier than the timeline for skill training would otherwise be ready for, and will be among the first to achieve capstone abilities. more casual players will have all the skill ranks accumulated (due to time in-game), but might not (yet) have the merit badges required to advance into the capstone ability. But I have yet to see anywhere, categorically, that says you will be locked out of achieving capstone abilities [as long as you don't deviate from your archetype's skill set]. Even then, I believe this idea is up for discussion, as seen on this [http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p47r&page=4?Capstones-Why#198] and other threads.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the gameplay is the point. My point, if you will. Gameplay is the raison d'etre for creating a character: not only your gameplay, but in the sandbox milieu for everyone else's gameplay as well. Gameplay here has no relation to stats, classes, capstone abilities, archetypes, skills or any other number-crunching, mind-numbing (to me, and i excel at math...) frippery. Gameplay is what you and your character "bring to the table"... or in this case sandbox.

@CaptnB: recruited! >=]

as a side-note, most of the posts i've read here conform to the 'good' spectrum of alignment, whether they are character ideas, guild/company proposals, etc. Is there nobody here who wants to explore the fringes of 'civilized society' and prey on the weak, unprepared, or foolishly overzealous? Frankly, i'm surprised there aren't 30 thieve's guilds in the works...

As a long-time DM, player, and grudging convert to the online world of mmorpgs (another discussion, for another thread), when I hear "what do you want to play?" I immediately think of my role in society/the world at large. When given the opportunity to start a level 1 character, I have a humble, and potentially ambitious beginning to a personality. I have a set of goals, ideals, or challenges that I confront myself with.

I have more respect for the "guy with a sword" answer than the templated arch-gibbledy-gok replies. The GWAS has a humble beginning. He has some goals in mind. He will seek out some things that interest him, and pursue them until complete or uninteresting. This, already, is a more 'alive' character than the stat-block-from-epic-hell.

You're right. You are a absolutely right.

I want to be the hero. I want to protect all life. I want to protect those who evil talk in term of weak. I want a "personnage joueur" who understand that evil exist not because we say yes, but because we don't say no. He will not chase evil because they're evil (because there still alive even there undeath). It because they corrupt innocent live and the cycle of life. If they do nothing, he will let them live. People killing other. if they need it for living, it ok. If they attack him, he will first fly. If he can't fly, he will respond with all his might.

He will be a lumberjack. He will cut trees in the style of fire and wind like they do in forest.

I think I'm ultimately going to start off as a weapon/armor crafter. Try to make that my sole focus starting out and seeing how far we can push the crafting system in that regard. After that...maybe a tradesman or something along those lines. My first actual combat character might not be until my third character! Even then, I'll probably end up rolling a Fighter and be a mercenary.

@Grym "Always fail forward" was a bit of advice running a game, if the players fail a check then you still let them proceed but have some sort of penalty. I.E. if they a str check to open the stuck door they need to go through, then have door open but say he sprained his shoulder and takes a -1 to checks with that arm.

Point here is to not say never, but rather just penalize instead.

also, my point was I should count as having mastered a role when I reach twenty badges even if I explored other ideas.

@ DLH: thanks for the explanation. it is, in fact, an attitude (or playstyle/DM style) that i apply in my TT games...

to a degree.

if the raging barbarian blows the Strength check to open the door, well then, that's too bad. door remains closed. If, however, the raging barbarian enlists the "aid" of his companions, and they (combined) miss the str check of the door by a small margin, then yes, said door opens and then a penalty applies for a short while (or simply an amusing anecdote is rendered where the entire party trying to open the door collapse on each other in a fully-armored orgy of limbs, curses, and bafoonery, once the stubborn door finally bursts open and they land in a heap in the next room).

This is harder to achieve, i think, in a video-game, where the mechanical rules are literally hard-coded. there is no DM caveat.

We already know that there are hard boundaries that will be implemented in PFO: vis. naming conventions (not picking on you, i quite like the name/idea of mindiana, except that she's a halfling, and i loathe halflings... /sigh). Granted, naming conventions are a less mechanical 'ruleset' than capstones, but they illustrate the point that we should expect that there will be things in the game that carry consequences for our characters, and that those consequences may (will likely) be far-reaching and non-reversible (you won't change your name back after being slapped for non-conformity).

To further illustrate how non-lenient/not-fail-forward a video game can (and should) be, consider: the party has reduced the BBEG to 1% health on a 'raid' or whatever passes for it. The healer is out of juice, the damage dealers have broken weapons, are fleeing in terror, or dead, and the sole-remaining hero is finally brought-low by the BBEG. The raid wipes. Bummer. They try again (going back to their hopefully instanced dungeon to collect their husks, gear, etc.). And Wipe. And Wipe. And Wipe. At what point, even at <1% of the BBEG's health, does the programming apply 'fail-forward' to this encounter and simply pass the party through to the hero's loot stage/dead BBEG?

Finally, I would state a personal preference that I prefer the immersion generated by our actions, choices, and the outcomes of them having real, long-term consequences (and having at least some of them be non-reversible). It makes the game 'more real' for me. I might also point out that I'm not playing the game to 'simulate' anything... it's a fantasy game and reality can bite my behind for all that (something that, honestly, irks me about this thread regarding the 'real-life-analogues' arguments for and against capstone abilities). I'm not 100% sure that I think capstones should function that way (be an all-or-nothing/once or never choice), but I do support the paradigm that includes these kinds of developmental decisions (both for our characters and for the game in general).

respectfully
Grym

edit: rofl. so sorry, this is definitely a cross-posted thought process of mine, must be very tired. just realized this was the character thread, not the capstone thread... you derailed me! ha ha, apologies.

In relavence to the post I replied to, I shouldn't be barred from a portion of the game unless I can easily restart to all that was missed the first time, the ideals of the stated game mechanics so far preclude that simply from there never being an end. In eve you don't go making a second char to fly a new ship, you just teach your current char to do so.
And they say it's a homage to the PnP but it doesn't exist in PnP at all. In both the PnP and other sandboxes, it's a matter of when, not if.

How does fail-forward apply to competive multiplayer, as opposed to cooperative storytelling? In storytelling the objective is to prevent the dice from stopping the story; in PFO the story continues if the seige razed the entire city or if the seige is turned back.

In this case, I was refering to game design and character advancement, not in gameplay.
AKA, character advancement shouldn't bar you completely from something just like playing the game shouldn't completely bar you from continueing the story.